For those who haven't heard, Dave passed away at 12:42 pm on Sunday, November 22, after a courageous six-month battle with highly aggressive lung cancer. Obviously signed book copies are no longer available, and anyone with an outstanding order will be contacted within the next week.

I first came across McGowan when reading his excellent analysis of the Apollo hoax, but I lost a lot of faith in him after his post-9/11 comments.

His death on 22/11 raises a few hairs on the back of my neck, but I have no idea if this is a red flag or not? If he has indeed passed away, his work on Laurel Canyon and Apollo will be his legacy and should be essential reading for future generations. And I thank him for that.

I also needed to comment on this... Dave McGowan apparently died on 22/11/2015. Of all dates.

To the uninformed, a search for McGowan's name across this forum will show how important and stimulating his website "Center for an informed America" has been... Maybe not for 9/11, about which McGowan never suggested the presence of fakery, but undoubtedly for the Moon landings, the Kennedy assassination, the Laurel Canyon scene and many other topics. His style of writing, a mix of elegant humor and facts, was the best you could get.

Unfortunately, of his great website and all the material that was there, nothing is left. I regret not having made a full backup of it.

Blanking pages. One by one. Selecting all, deleting, replacing with some redirect code. That's quite a deliberate and tedious action to do.

This strategy, for the unaware, forces google to reset the cache of all pages to blank ones. Whereas deleting the website altogether might have left the information up on Google, at least for a while.

So what about the new website? Apparently, this has been created by McGowan's "daughter", "Alissa" (forgive the quotes, but they are going to stay there until we should know better), who decided to remove all the material, only leaving links to buy his books, and, of all articles, the one about the Boston bombings. I have a feeling why only the Boston bombings, but let's not delve into that here.

As she explains here, she did this on the vague promise of making all the material available in the book format. However, this hasn't happened in over 7 months and I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

Maybe a better strategy would have been to remove the material once it was made available in ebook format, not before, because what we have now is a dead author who has left almost nothing to read of all his research once publicly available on the Internet. Quite an odd way to operate.

It's great that we have a backup! but... is it really complete? Am I completely incorrect in remembering that there was also the Kennedy assassination among the topics? Sharpstuff, as described elsewhere, to download a full website you need a piece of software such as HTTrack, look it up.

The date listed for its publication is August 1, 2000. The "note" at the top is most interesting as well, since the person writing it decided that the piece is actually more pertinent NOW than in 2000. Enjoy.

The Terrorists are Coming! The Terrorists are Coming!

8/1/2000

futl.work/m015Note to readers: A few recent visitors to this web site have e-mailed me asking if perhaps this article (previously posted elsewhere on this site) shouldn't be taken down or rewritten in light of the events of September 11, 2001. Having forgotten what the article actually said, I decided to review it for myself. After doing so, I decided that it shouldn't be taken down or rewritten, and is in fact more relevant today than the day it was written. Notice that all of the reactionary 'security' measures now being openly called for by all avenues of the U.S. political and media apparatus were already being quietly called for long before any 'terrorist' attack took place. Of course, a year ago these measures would have met with stiff resistance from the American people. That is decidedly not the case now. It is left to the reader to decide if this represents the prescient wisdom of our fearless leaders, or a self-fulfilling prophecy. September 19, 2001.The National Commission on Terrorism, a ten-member panel assembled by the U.S. Congress to deal with supposedly rising levels of international terrorism, released a sixty-four page report this June in which a variety of measures designed to hasten the rise of the overt police state were recommended. According to the panel, these recommendations were based on a conclusion reached after conducting a six-month world-wide investigation.

This investigation led the bipartisan commission to the rather remarkable conclusion that "a well-financed, fanatical and global terrorist network poses exceedingly difficult problems for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies." Commission chairman L. Paul Bremer III, a former State Department ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism (which is to say, a spook) summed up the problem thusly: "the threat is changing, and it's becoming more deadly." (1)

An adviser to the commission - who also boasts of being a senior adviser to the president of the Rand Corporation, a long-time intelligence front - described the report as "a passionate document determined to bring about a fundamental change in mind-set." He praised the commission for recognizing that "while progress has been made in combating terrorism, the terrorist threat has evolved ... Large scale indiscriminate violence has become the reality of today's terrorism, raising concerns that tomorrow's terrorists will move beyond truck bombs to employ chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons." (2)

Fanatical bands of global terrorists toting nuclear weapons and launching them indiscriminately? That's pretty scary stuff. The thing that really sucks is that it comes at a time when we thought we had finally made the world safe by eliminating the menace of "international communism." And now this.

It's really a bitch being the world's only superpower. Never a moment's rest. Of course, being that we are - as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has stated - "the indispensable nation," we will do the right thing and make sacrifices at home and abroad to deal with this new global threat. Luckily, the commission has given us a blueprint for what we need to do.

First, the good news: the aforementioned commission chairman was quick to clarify that the report is "not recommending martial law." (3) Whew! That sure is a relief (of course, it would be even more of a relief if the good chairman had not even felt the need to bring up the subject of martial law). There are a few changes we're going to have to make though.

For starters, we need "more wiretaps on Americans." That will show those fanatical bastards that we are getting serious about fighting a war on terrorism. We also need to start "using the Army to replace civilian law enforcement" (though how you tell the difference anymore between 'civilian' law enforcement and military personnel is beyond me). And even more importantly, we need to start "stigmatizing foreign students who switch their majors to science," (4) lest they scurry back to the terrorist-harboring rogue state that they call home and start building nuclear warheads.

It's also high time that we begin "loosening restrictions on the Central Intelligence Agency." (1) Enough with the incredible restraint the agency has shown for the last fifty-three years - let's put some real teeth into the CIA. For one thing, let's "drop the guidelines that restrict the recruitment of unsavory informants who have committed human right abuses." (2)

This is, of course, an age-old problem for the agency. In the past, guidelines have been so restrictive that mass murderers like Klaus Barbie were barely able to slip in the door. Rumor has it that Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson had to lie on his application to get on the payroll. It's really rather foolish to think that an intelligence agency can function effectively without a few Nazis, Mafioso, drug lords and assassins on the roster. We're trying to fight a war here.

And let's follow another of the commission's recommendations and begin "threatening sanctions against states normally regarded as friendly to U.S. interests, such as Greece and Pakistan." (1) Why? Because they are "not cooperating fully" in the U.S.-sponsored war on terrorism. And if they don't clean up their act, they may just find themselves listed as "a 'state sponsor' of terrorism, a label now officially attached by the State Department to just seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba." (1)

In fact, maybe we should just start issuing threats to any nation at random. You never know where those crafty terrorists could be hiding. As Brian Michael Jenkins - the adviser to the commission - noted: "the new murkier structures are harder to identify, more difficult to penetrate." (2) Almost, in fact, as if they don't even exist at all.

Finally, let's definitely implement the commission's recommendation that "in the case of a catastrophic terrorist attack ... the Department of Defense be designated the lead federal agency, instead of the FBI or the Federal Emergency Management Agency." (2) I can't speak for anyone else, but it certainly makes me feel safer knowing that the agency in charge will be one that admits to being a military entity, rather than one that pretends not to be.

Perhaps it is time to pause here for a reality check - the cold, hard reality being that there is no international terrorist threat to the United States. It simply does not exist. But you don't have to take my word for it - the U.S. State Department itself has graphically illustrated this fact in their annual report entitled "Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1999." A few of the charts included in this report will suffice to show that the State Department is well aware of the fact that there is no terrorist threat to the United States, even as this same government agency attempts to exploit the wholly manufactured fear of this non-existent threat to further curtail the few civil liberties still remaining in this country. PictureThe first thing that should be immediately apparent is that terrorist attacks - or at least what the U.S. government considers terrorist attacks, which obviously does not include the acts committed by America or its various surrogates around the world - have shown an overall decline since reaching a peak in 1987. In fact, the years 1996-1998 showed the lowest levels of terrorist activity since the U.S. government started keeping records of such things. While there was a slight increase in the past year, the truth is that this increase was not by any means due to what any rational-minded person would consider 'terrorist' activity.

As the report acknowledges, the increase was due to three factors: "In Europe individuals mounted dozens of attacks to protest the NATO bombing campaign in Serbia and the Turkish authorities' capture of Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK) terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan" and "radical youth gangs in Nigeria abducted and held for ransom more than three dozen foreign oil workers. The gangs held most of the hostages for a few days before releasing them unharmed." In other words, in some parts of the world there was active resistance to flagrantly illegal acts committed by the United States, which included: the destruction of the infrastructure of a sovereign nation and the deliberate infliction of massive environmental damage on that same nation, all in violation of any number of international laws; the direct complicity in the kidnapping of the leader of a resistance movement leading a struggle against a corrupt U.S.-backed government whose 'ethnic cleansing' of Turkish and Iraqi Kurds has already claimed tens of thousands of lives, by the State Department's own figures; and the century-long exploitation of the planet by U.S. oil interests. The next two charts illustrate the gravity of the risk that we here in America face from terrorist attacks. Picture PictureIt would appear that the fear that we are encouraged to feel towards terrorist attacks may be just a little, shall we say, out of proportion to the actual risks. There have been exactly fifteen terrorist attacks in North America in the last six years resulting in exactly seven casualties. That's barely over one person per year killed or injured by a terrorist attack in all of North America. The reality is that the odds of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack in the United States are so slight as to be statistically insignificant. Perhaps the most amazing thing is that - given that the United States has been complicit in some of the most barbaric crimes against humanity of the past century, through the exercise of a foreign policy described by one former U.S. Attorney General as "the greatest crime since World War II" - there haven't been more attacks launched against the U.S.

But what, you may ask, about those 'rogue states,' designated by the State Department as "state sponsors of terrorism"? Surely they pose a threat, right? In truth, the seven nations listed as sponsors of terrorism - Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria - do not even pose a regional threat, let alone a threat to the United States. And all of them have been the victims of illegal and unconscionable acts of terrorism by the United States.

Cuba has suffered through forty years of U.S.-imposed sanctions and every manner of covert operation imaginable, including repeated assassination attempts, biological warfare attacks directed against food crops and livestock, industrial and economic sabotage, and that nasty little Bay of Pigs affair. All of this aggression towards the tiny island is of course to punish the Cuban people for having the gall to overthrow the rule of the criminally corrupt Fulgencio Batista, after the U.S. went to all the trouble to install him in power.

Iran was the victim of a bloody coup in 1953 - directed by Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy and cousin of FDR) and approved by John Foster Dulles - that resulted in the imposition of fascist rule by the U.S.-controlled Shah, who maintained power by means of SAVAK - the gestapo-like security force that resulted from the reorganization of the Iranian National Police by Brigadier General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (haven't I heard that name somewhere before?). In 1976, Amnesty International reported that SAVAK had the worst human rights record on the planet. The U.S. has continued to meddle in the affairs of the nation of Iran to the present day.

Iraq, for those with very short memories, has been the victim of a combination of bombings and sanctions for nearly ten years now. The infrastructure of the country is in a shambles, food and medical supplies are in short supply, sanitation is poor and disease runs rampant. Estimates of the death toll in the last decade run as high as two million - with 60% or more being children. Any purported terrorist acts committed by the nation of Iraq pale in comparison to the genocidal crimes being perpetrated against the Iraqi people by the United States.

Libya was the victim of an illegal and cowardly, unannounced, night-time bombing raid against a civilian population center ordered by President Reagan that resulted in numerous deaths. North Korea buried more than a million of its citizens in the 1950's due to U.S. military actions ordered by President Truman, and has endured sanctions and continual covert military operations ever since. The Sudan was the victim of an unprovoked cruise missile strike ordered by President Clinton that wiped out a pharmaceutical plant supplying the majority of antibiotics and other drugs to the region - resulting in countless thousands of deaths. Syria was the victim of a failed coup approved by the ubiquitous Dulles brothers and orchestrated by Kermit and Archibald Roosevelt (another of Teddy's grandsons).

Any alleged terrorist acts by these nations against U.S. interests are then - if not entirely justified - certainly understandable. But the truth is that most of them have not actually sponsored any terrorist acts for many years, even by the State Department's self-serving definition of what constitutes a terrorist act. Though the 1999 report goes to great lengths to conceal that fact, the prior year's report noted that: "there is no evidence of Libyan involvement in recent acts of international terrorism"; "there is no evidence of direct Syrian involvement in acts of international terrorism since 1986"; "Cuba no longer supports armed struggle in Latin America or elsewhere"; and "North Korea has not been linked definitively to any act of international terrorism since 1987." (5)

The report does note though that North Korea "continues to provide safehaven to terrorists who hijacked a Japanese airliner to North Korea in 1970." (5) And don't think that we've forgotten about that either. No, according to the more recent report: "The United States is committed to holding terrorists and those who harbor them accountable for past attacks, regardless of when the acts occurred. The United States has a long memory ..." (6) And we really know how to hold a grudge. Which is why we must track down these terrorists wherever they may lurk. According to the State Department, they can usually be found "seek(ing) refuge in 'swamps'." (6) If this is true, then U.S. intelligence forces should feel right at home wading in after them.

On a more serious note, it is abundantly clear that the call for yet more repressive police state measures has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the American people from international terrorism. The true agenda - the further repression of democratic rights in this country - couldn't be any more clear. And neither could the task before the American people be any more clear. It's up to us to rid the world of the primary sponsor of international terrorism, and we'd better get started pretty goddamn soon.

See also Killing Hope, by William Blum, for a more complete accounting of covert and overt military operations directed against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria and a few dozen other countries.

I'm looking forward to reading through more of his materials. I'm only through the first 2 parts of the Lincoln Assassination reading, but it's compelling and fun to be sure.

We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it. if we had a chance to sit down and have a cup of coffee with the man in the street that we have been interviewing, he might say: "You know, the one thing I can never figure out is why all these very, very wealthy people like the Kennedys, the Fords, the Rockefellers and others are for socialism. Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don't they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller's and it seems funny that I'm against socialism and he's out promoting it." Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.

Doesn't it strike you as strange that some of the individuals pushing hardest for socialism have their own personal wealth protected in family trusts and tax-free foundations? Men like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy are for every socialist program known to man which will increase your taxes. Yet they pay little, if anything, in taxes themselves. An article published by the North American Newspaper Alliance in August of 1967 tells how the' Rockefellers pay practically no income taxes despite their vast wealth. The article reveals that One of the Rockefellers paid the grand total of $685 personal income tax during a recent year. The Kennedys have their Chicago Merchandise Mart, their mansions, yachts, 'planes, etc., all owned by their myriads of family foundations and trusts. Taxes are for peons! Yet hypocrites like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy pose as great champions of the "downtrodden." If they were really concerned about the poor, rather than using socialism as a means of' achieving personal political power, they would divest themselves of their own fortunes. There is no law which prevents them from giving away their own fortunes to the poverty stricken. Shouldn't these men set all example? And practice what they preach? If they advocate sharing the wealth, shouldn't they start with their own instead of that of the middle class which pays almost all the taxes? Why don't Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Ford II give away all their wealth, retaining only enough to place themselves at the national average? Can't you imagine Teddy Kennedy giving up his mansion, airplane and yacht and moving into a $25,000 home' with a $20,000' mortgage like the rest of us?

We are usually told that this clique of super-rich are socialists because they have a guilt complex over wealth they inherited and did not earn. Again, they could relieve these supposed guilt complexes simply by divesting themselves of their unearned wealth. There' are doubtless many wealthy do-gooders who have been given a guilt complex by their college professors, but that doesn't explain the actions of Insiders like the Rockefellers, Fords or Kennedys. All their actions betray them as power seekers.

But the Kennedys, Rockefellers and their super-rich confederates are not being hypocrites in advocating socialism. It appears to be a contradiction for the super-rich to work for socialism and the destruction of free enterprise. In reality it is not.

Our problem is that most of us believe socialism is what the socialists want us to believe it is-a share-the wealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works? Let us examine the only Socialist countries according to the Socialist definition of the word extant in the world today. These are the Communist countries. The Communists themselves refer to these as Socialist countries, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Here in the reality of socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other ninety-seven percent. Certainly even the most naive observe that Mr. Brezhnev doesn't live like one of the poor peasants out on the great Russian steppes. But, according to socialist theory, he is supposed to do just that!

If one understands that socialism is not a share-the Wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite. The plan of the conspirator Insiders then is to socialize the United States, not to Communize it.

SacredCowSlayer wrote:Iran was the victim of a bloody coup in 1953 - directed by Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy and cousin of FDR) and approved by John Foster Dulles - that resulted in the imposition of fascist rule by the U.S.-controlled Shah, who maintained power by means of SAVAK - the gestapo-like security force that resulted from the reorganization of the Iranian National Police by Brigadier General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (haven't I heard that name somewhere before?). In 1976, Amnesty International reported that SAVAK had the worst human rights record on the planet. The U.S. has continued to meddle in the affairs of the nation of Iran to the present day.

Seeing as far too many intelligent Iranians also believe the above ‘conspiracy theory’ I give Dave a pass on this one (and a thank you for all the laughs!). First off, let’s take a cursory look at the (highly esteemed figure by Iran’s (mostly well meaning) intellectual elite) ‘poor martyr’ of Operation Ajax:

MohammadMosaddeghMosaddegh was born to a prominent family of high officials in Tehran on 16 June 1882; his father, Mirza Hideyatu'llah Ashtiani, was a finance minister under the Qajar dynasty, and his mother, Princess Malek Taj Najm-es-Saltaneh, was the granddaughter of the reformist Qajar prince Abbas Mirza, and a great granddaughter of Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar.[11][12][13] When Mosaddegh's father died in 1892, his uncle was appointed the tax collector of the Khorasan province and was bestowed with the title of Mosaddegh-os-Saltaneh by Nasser al-Din Shah.[14] Mosaddegh himself later bore the same title, by which he was still known to some long after titles were abolished.[15]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Early_life

This bitch made madar jendeh said all the right things that people wanted to hear – a pseudo-populist. What he CONVENIENTLY failed to take into consideration was that Iran did not exist in a vacuum. No king, president, prime minister could exert the will of his people onto all the nations of the world (even if he wanted to). He sold the people on the loftiest ideals and in so doing made the Shah look inept/aloof for failing to live up to them.

And before anyone gets the impression that I’m cheerleading for the Pahlavi Dynasty, I’m not!

The Shah’s mother, brothers & sisters were a den of vipers. He kicked several of them out of the country (i.e. one of his sisters was the kingpin of Iran’s heroin trade). Anyhow, the 1953 PsyOp was a classic case of the CIA pretending to be more powerful than it is. Iran’s merchant (Bazari) elite helped the Quajar aristocrats (and the big Mullah landlors) to undermine the Shah. Even after the mullahs are wiped out (which they will be) the JIGGA RICH Bazari will still be there – a mighty mother truckin’ force to be reckoned with!